EMR vs. CWT
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.) and CWT (California Water Service Group) are both stocks. EMR operates in Specialty Industrial Machinery (Industrials), while CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities). Over the past 10 years, EMR returned 13.44%/yr vs 5.57%/yr for CWT. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
EMR vs. CWT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMR achieves a 8.65% return, which is significantly higher than CWT's 6.79% return. Over the past 10 years, EMR has outperformed CWT with an annualized return of 13.44%, while CWT has yielded a comparatively lower 5.57% annualized return.
EMR
- 1D
- 0.69%
- 1M
- 4.27%
- YTD
- 8.65%
- 6M
- 5.53%
- 1Y
- 14.74%
- 3Y*
- 20.61%
- 5Y*
- 10.27%
- 10Y*
- 13.44%
CWT
- 1D
- 0.49%
- 1M
- 5.22%
- YTD
- 6.79%
- 6M
- 4.76%
- 1Y
- 0.41%
- 3Y*
- -3.04%
- 5Y*
- -2.91%
- 10Y*
- 5.57%
EMR vs. CWT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMR Emerson Electric Co. | 8.65% | 8.92% | 29.73% | 3.75% | 5.74% | 18.19% | 8.61% | 31.53% | -11.87% | 29.05% |
CWT California Water Service Group | 6.79% | -1.81% | -10.64% | -12.83% | -14.13% | 35.05% | 6.68% | 9.85% | 7.06% | 36.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMR and CWT is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990 | 0.23 |
The correlation between EMR and CWT shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
EMR:
$80.55B
CWT:
$2.72B
EMR:
$4.33
CWT:
$1.99
EMR:
33.02
CWT:
22.87
EMR:
11.74
CWT:
0.55
EMR:
4.41
CWT:
2.69
EMR:
3.96
CWT:
1.52
EMR:
$18.32B
CWT:
$1.01B
EMR:
$7.22B
CWT:
$366.63M
EMR:
$3.87B
CWT:
$329.51M
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EMR vs. CWT — Risk / Return Rank
EMR
CWT
EMR vs. CWT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) and California Water Service Group (CWT). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| EMR | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.47 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.68 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.02 | +0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.63 | 0.03 | +0.60 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.37 | 0.05 | +1.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMR vs. CWT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMR drawdown since its inception was -59.05%, which is greater than CWT's maximum drawdown of -38.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMR and CWT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMR | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.05% | -38.21% | -20.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.45% | -14.59% | -8.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -29.62% | -24.13% | -5.49% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.62% | -38.21% | +8.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -50.77% | -38.21% | -12.56% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.82% | -29.87% | +19.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.11% | -11.70% | -2.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.79% | 7.73% | +3.06% |
Volatility
EMR vs. CWT - Volatility Comparison
Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) has a higher volatility of 9.08% compared to California Water Service Group (CWT) at 7.70%. This indicates that EMR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CWT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMR | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.08% | 7.70% | +1.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 25.24% | 18.76% | +6.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.47% | 24.20% | +6.27% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.36% | 24.30% | +3.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 29.14% | 27.74% | +1.40% |
Dividends
EMR vs. CWT - Dividend Comparison
EMR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than CWT's 2.79% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 2.79% | 2.86% | 2.47% | 2.01% | 1.65% | 1.28% | 1.57% | 1.53% | 1.57% | 1.59% | 2.04% | 2.88% |
EMR Emerson Electric Co. | 1.53% | 1.61% | 1.70% | 2.14% | 2.15% | 2.18% | 2.49% | 2.58% | 3.26% | 2.76% | 3.42% | 3.94% |
Financials
EMR vs. CWT - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Emerson Electric Co. and California Water Service Group. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
EMR vs. CWT - Profitability Comparison
EMR - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emerson Electric Co. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 4.56B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
CWT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 214.57M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
EMR - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emerson Electric Co. reported an operating income of 0.00 and revenue of 4.56B, resulting in an operating margin of 0.0%.
CWT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported an operating income of 18.16M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in an operating margin of 8.5%.
EMR - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emerson Electric Co. reported a net income of 618.00M and revenue of 4.56B, resulting in a net margin of 13.6%.
CWT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported a net income of 4.04M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in a net margin of 1.9%.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMR and CWT have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EMR has higher volatility (9.08%) compared to CWT (7.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMR dropped -59.05% vs CWT's -38.21%.
EMR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.49 vs 0.02), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for EMR and CWT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer